Even if the D800 proves to have better DR than the 5DIII in the real world, I can just as easily decide that I hate it due to color reproduction, contrast, and sharpness that aren't my cup of tea. I remember the first shoot I did with the 5DC. I was blown away by the film-like image quality of the files. It was like I was shooting color slides again, and the color, contrast, and sharpness were simply stunning. I'd never seen such incredible IQ on any digital camera before. I didn't care how its DR or ISO measured on some on chart posted by some geek on the internet. The images just had that certain look and feel to them that I cherished, and at the end of the day, that's all that mattered. IMHO, that's why you have to try these things out in the real world before determining a winner.

I don't mean to sound elitist, but this isn't something to be taken lightly. If you're taking photos for fun, I can see how spending 1 minute in post production to extend the DR of an image vs. spending 10 minutes isn't a big deal. However, if you're working on a tight deadline, need to process six dozen images to present to a client, and your livelihood depends on the quality of your images, out-of-camera files that "make your life easier" in post production isn't a luxury, it's a necessity.

Obviously, this doesn't only apply to DR, but also noise, sharpness, color reproduction, contrast, etc. It all adds up, and any time you can save in post production is time you can be spending behind the lens and making more money. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be shooting than staring into a computer screen and fiddling with a mouse

Certainly, I don't disagree. However, if your spending that much time tweaking every single photo one at a time, your not using modern post-processing tools effectively. Lightroom, for example, supports per-camera import profiles that can automatically apply default processing to every file you import.

In the case of my 7D, it has a bit of an aggressive low-pass filter so it always needs a little sharpening, and I prefer to import with flat tone curves and the Canon Neutral profile (amongst other things.) I simply took one photo, applied my base adjustments, and created an import profile based on that images adjustments. Every image I import from my 7D gets a fairly significant set of standard adjustments that prepare my photos for a little more tweaking. I also created a couple presets named after the camera model and intention of the preset (such as "Canon 7D 1EV ETTR", "Canon 7D 2EV ETTR", etc.) which can be applied at the click of a button to apply further adjustments automatically to correct for how I may have used ETTR on any given photo. If all the photos in a set need the same preset, I can apply on import, otherwise I can apply it to a single photo, individually select any others that need the same preset, and sync settings. However the presets are applied, its always fast, and the remainder of per-photo tweaks are the same tweaks you might need to do if you had better shadow recovery built into the camera.

Just because to change your approach to utilize the capabilities of a camera better does not mean you have to spend an extra, inordinate amount of time in post "compensating" for the "deficiencies" of your gear. Just like you need to know how to use your gear, you should also know how to use your post-processing tools. If you ARE spending a tremendous amount of time in post adjusting your photos, then you can save yourself a LOT of time by learning your post-process software as well as you know your gear. So I entirely agree...minimize time spent in post; what camera you have has no bearing on that.

If you regularly find yourself dragging up the shadows, then you might as well jump ship and head over to Nikon where the grass is greener. Or you could ETTR, utilize the sensor DR better (Canon does seem to have a bit more highlight headroom than Nikon by about 1/2 a stop based on DPR charts), and correct exposure at the click of a button in post

I would certainly hope that anyone attempting to earn a living with Canon gear utilizes a technique as simple as ETTR Like you said, Canon files are incredibly good at highlight recovery, which makes ETTR a very useful tool in extending DR. My point is that over time, everyone is going to learn tricks like ETTR, or something as basic as using reflectors, fill light, multiple exposures, etc to extend DR. You're going to do that regardless of whether you shoot Canon or Nikon. Ultimately, however, a file with more latitude right "out of the box" will help you create the best image possible.

Sure, more latitude is always better. I don't think thats been the debate, though...at least, not as I've seen it. The tone here is less extreme over at DPR, but there are a lot of people who seem to literally be freaking out as thought the 5D III is a complete flop and a totally worthless excuse for a camera because of one single aspect that Nikon and Sony do better...and better only really at a low technical level...the gap is minor in terms of real-world performance. Everyone wants more DR, but 2.5 stops more on a technical level boils down to less than a stop in real-world difference, which kind of makes all the worry rather moot in the grand scheme of things. Its a lot more effective to just buy a reflector, or a fill light, or use multiple exposures, etc. than to wait a whole extra generation before upgrading, or incurring the excessive cost of switching brands. If you have DR limitations, light the scene properly, or slap on a GND.

Even if the D800 proves to have better DR than the 5DIII in the real world, I can just as easily decide that I hate it due to color reproduction, contrast, and sharpness that aren't my cup of tea. I remember the first shoot I did with the 5DC. I was blown away by the film-like image quality of the files. It was like I was shooting color slides again, and the color, contrast, and sharpness were simply stunning. I'd never seen such incredible IQ on any digital camera before. I didn't care how its DR or ISO measured on some on chart posted by some geek on the internet. The images just had that certain look and feel to them that I cherished, and at the end of the day, that's all that mattered. IMHO, that's why you have to try these things out in the real world before determining a winner.

+1 Couldn't agree with all of that more. We can presume to know all we want, but real-world performance is all that really matters. Regardless of how we may all feel about the low-level technical statistics...one thing has been pretty constant for all Canon, Nikon, and Sony cameras the last 4 years: they get better every time they are upgraded. Its highly doubtful the 5D III will perform worse than the 5D II, and based on the samples so far (most of which are from pre-production models), I'd be quite happy with any one of the newly released cameras (money being no object.) I don't think any of them would produce anything either me, my customers, or even an editor of a publication couldn't be happy with. Even if they were...I'd blame the photographer, not the camera.

I look at it this way, what everyone is talking about at very small differences. Overall BOTH cameras are going to produce great images in the right hands and utter rubbish in the wrong hands. For me it boils down to this.

Even if the D800 is better it will be by a marginal technical amount that will more than likely not be noticable in images and definately not noticable in print. With so much invested in canon glass (as with alot of other people on here) changing teams would be a silly haircut to take to change to Nikon.

Sure this round Nikon win the MP Bragging rights and some numerical theoretical DR bragging right. (How many people waste all this image quality and inbuilt DR by running 9 bracket exposures at 0.5 stop through a trash compactor like photomatix etc? Can people not see how the image quality is decimated by these programs FAR beyond the miniscule differences between a D800 sensor and a 5Dmk3 Sensor, DR is becoming a crutch. Ok overprocessing fans smite away again )

This stuff while interesting to read about being technically minded does not mean that the differences between the cameras are going to be noticable or even measurable in real world work and deliverables.

Step back and look at the bigger picture, then go and take some enjoy the camera and the shoot, after all isnt that what most of us are here for anyway?

Thanks for that reference, jrista. So while sensorgen is calculating DR from full-well capacity (in e-) & read noise (also in e-), what LetTheRightLensIn was doing in calculating the 5DIII DR was saying that:

BUT, I just think there's something really strange about about Canon's black levels of 1024 & 2048 vs D7000's essentially 0. So for fun I just took the standard deviation in black pixels, divided it by the mean of black pixels, then multiplied by 100. That's that '% Variation in black' number you see. Notice it's down for the 5D III vs. the 5D II. Meaning a cleaner, but higher, black level. And for the D7000, the percent variation is pretty high since the actual numbers are vacillating around 0-1, with a max of 8 (black level of D7000 RAW files really seems to be 0-ish).

I don't really know what to draw from that other than that 5D III probably has cleaner blacks than 5D II. I wish someone could figure out what the higher overall black level signal in the Canon files mean, next to Nikon's near 0 black level...

I'm not quite sure how this thread turned into a talk about DR, but DR is just one of MANY factors that determine IQ. Even if the D800 proves to have better DR than the 5DIII in the real world, I can just as easily decide that I hate it due to color reproduction, contrast, and sharpness that aren't my cup of tea. I remember the first shoot I did with the 5DC. I was blown away by the film-like image quality of the files. It was like I was shooting color slides again, and the color, contrast, and sharpness were simply stunning. I'd never seen such incredible IQ on any digital camera before. I didn't care how its DR or ISO measured on some on chart posted by some geek on the internet. The images just had that certain look and feel to them that I cherished, and at the end of the day, that's all that mattered. IMHO, that's why you have to try these things out in the real world before determining a winner.

This paragraph mirrors my sentiments exactly regrading the 5DC. Even after all these years I am amazed at the color and contrast it produces. There are many newer cameras that are better on paper and I certainly give my 7D and rented 5DIIs their fair use but I always prefer to use the 5DC when I am not in need of specific features it lacks (video for example).

Certainly, I don't disagree. However, if your spending that much time tweaking every single photo one at a time, your not using modern post-processing tools effectively. Lightroom, for example, supports per-camera import profiles that can automatically apply default processing to every file you import.

I hardly spend a lot of time in post. On average, it's less than 20 seconds per image. As an old film guy, I put in enormous effort to get things right in camera. I fully understand the benefits of an efficient post production work flow, but this technique is less effective in some situations. Most of what I shoot is in natural light, which is complemented with off-camera flash, reflectors, etc. The quality of the light varies dramatically based on the time of day, weather conditions, etc. As such, it's not practical to apply a generic profile in Lightroom across a broad set of images.

The light in this image...

...is different from the light in this one...

...and this one...

...and this one...

...and this one....

...and this one...

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Quote

Just because to change your approach to utilize the capabilities of a camera better does not mean you have to spend an extra, inordinate amount of time in post "compensating" for the "deficiencies" of your gear.

It's not always about deficiencies in gear. There are certain situations in which you can't possibly expect your camera to capture the image you're picturing in your head. You just need to understand the limitations of your equipment and adjust your technique accordingly.

For instance, you can't expect any camera on earth to properly expose the range of shadows and highlights in this image...

...but to get this shot to look how I envisioned it in my head, the final image was assembled with close to a dozen different exposures, fill light, reflectors, etc. If you can configure Lightroom to read my mind and assemble this image for me with some nifty presets, I'm game. Again, this has nothing to do with a deficiency of the equipment used, but more DR would have certainly reduced my time in post production

Quote

If you have DR limitations, light the scene properly, or slap on a GND

I'm not saying you're guilty of this, but just because you want to more DR doesn't mean you aren't already implementing such techniques. I sure hope anyone that wants to have a career spanning longer than two weeks would already be familiar with such basic techniques

Quote

Even if they were...I'd blame the photographer, not the camera.

No one's blaming the gear. IMHO, the photographer always deserves the blame. Even in situations where the equipment is clearly at fault, it's the photographer's responsibility to know these issues or risks and bring the right tools to the job.

@V8Beast: First off, damn nice photographs. Love your action shots, fantastic! Based on some of the editing, I don't think the lack of a stop worth of real-world DR is going to affect your processing time much...you do some pretty extensive and unique editing, which I would figure is what makes your work stand out, and why you have a job!

Second, we obviously don't disagree (and, btw, I was not claiming you actually don't use your gear or your software correctly.) The point I've been trying to make, which I believe you have made for me better than I could myself...is low-level differences that require poking around a raw file with open-source editors so you can see special masked off data that is only supposed to be used by code...just doesn't matter. With or without the extra DR (which, keep in mind, has only really been the case for not even three years in production DSLR's), you can still take photographs that rival or surpass what was possible with the best film in the past. Many of the advancements in digital technology have given digital a significant edge over film (such as low light photography, for which we have far better tools today to capture high quality and high detail way beyond all but the most expensive and specialized films of the past.)

Its human nature to want more, to want the best, to want everything...and at 1/10th cost. I have to wonder the cost of all the complaining, though, given the technical differences translate into marginal real-world gains/losses either way. We already have someone on this forum who posted a question asking if he was insane to dump Canon and go to Nikon...and the reason he was asking was because of all the talk about DR and noise and how atrociously horrible and nasty its going to be compared to Nikon had him worried. Thats a really sad state of affairs, to open up a discussion about something that causes your average photographer to worry that much about their gear to the point where they LITERALLY consider dumping their gear (at a guaranteed loss of some amount), jumping ship, and buying new gear. Your photos demonstrate that its possible to take fabulous photos with old gear, let alone the brand spankin new 5D III.

Its one thing to debate the technical merits of one technology or another in a forum of like-minded tech-heads who enjoy tearing things apart and figuring out how they work and how they compare on every level. Its another thing to give the average photographer (or even professionals who generally couldn't give a crap about the low-level technical specs, so long as the pictures they see it take look great and service their profession) enough worry that they waste money switching (only to find the grass really isn't that much greener on the other side, not nearly worth the cost they went through to get there), when that isn't the goal of all the tech-talk in the first place. I think the people tearing up CR2 files over on DPR to measure DR, SNR, noise, banding, etc. have failed in that respect, and done a disservice to the people who just need a tool to aid them in their profession or hobby (and really couldn't care about how the least significant 3-4 bits of Canon and Sony sensors compare.)

@V8Beast: First off, damn nice photographs. Love your action shots, fantastic! Based on some of the editing, I don't think the lack of a stop worth of real-world DR is going to affect your processing time much...you do some pretty extensive and unique editing, which I would figure is what makes your work stand out, and why you have a job!

Second, we obviously don't disagree (and, btw, I was not claiming you actually don't use your gear or your software correctly.) The point I've been trying to make, which I believe you have made for me better than I could myself...is low-level differences that require poking around a raw file with open-source editors so you can see special masked off data that is only supposed to be used by code...just doesn't matter. With or without the extra DR (which, keep in mind, has only really been the case for not even three years in production DSLR's), you can still take photographs that rival or surpass what was possible with the best film in the past. Many of the advancements in digital technology have given digital a significant edge over film (such as low light photography, for which we have far better tools today to capture high quality and high detail way beyond all but the most expensive and specialized films of the past.)

Its human nature to want more, to want the best, to want everything...and at 1/10th cost. I have to wonder the cost of all the complaining, though, given the technical differences translate into marginal real-world gains/losses either way. We already have someone on this forum who posted a question asking if he was insane to dump Canon and go to Nikon...and the reason he was asking was because of all the talk about DR and noise and how atrociously horrible and nasty its going to be compared to Nikon had him worried. Thats a really sad state of affairs, to open up a discussion about something that causes your average photographer to worry that much about their gear to the point where they LITERALLY consider dumping their gear (at a guaranteed loss of some amount), jumping ship, and buying new gear. Your photos demonstrate that its possible to take fabulous photos with old gear, let alone the brand spankin new 5D III.

Its one thing to debate the technical merits of one technology or another in a forum of like-minded tech-heads who enjoy tearing things apart and figuring out how they work and how they compare on every level. Its another thing to give the average photographer (or even professionals who generally couldn't give a crap about the low-level technical specs, so long as the pictures they see it take look great and service their profession) enough worry that they waste money switching (only to find the grass really isn't that much greener on the other side, not nearly worth the cost they went through to get there), when that isn't the goal of all the tech-talk in the first place. I think the people tearing up CR2 files over on DPR to measure DR, SNR, noise, banding, etc. have failed in that respect, and done a disservice to the people who just need a tool to aid them in their profession or hobby (and really couldn't care about how the least significant 3-4 bits of Canon and Sony sensors compare.)

I just want to clear up one too though, most us did dig into for no particular reason but only after we ran into the issues in the real world more than a few times. It depends what you want to shoot, etc. I don't mean to say it will matter for everyone at all, for some it virtually never may, but it's garbage OTOH to just turn the whole thing into a big joke and laugh it and so beyond downplay it as you are and you can get a bit snide and insulting about it all.

I have to admit I have half an academic interest in this & half a real interest in this DR debate because I also have found myself in situations where I've wanted to raise the shadows more in a landscape (where I did already control DR using Singh-Ray grad NDs) but couldn't, b/c of banding or FPN.

Therefore, I'm with LTRLI's sentiment of 'it's unfair to bash those concerned with these (esoteric?) subjects'.

LTRLI, did you get a chance to review those assumptions I posited (in my last post) you made when doing your DR analysis of the 5DIII? In the end, I think your method is valid because the per-pixel gain applied by the pixel amplifiers is probably roughly the same for low & high signals (e.g. about 4e- per DU to compress full-well capacity signal of ~65,000e- to 16,384 max for 14-bit ADC)... therefore relationship between input DR in scene (where increase in light causes a directly proportional increase in e- accumulated) and output DR in file (which you've analyzed via max pixel vs. stdev of blacks) will be maintained.

I just want to clear up one too though, most us did dig into for no particular reason but only after we ran into the issues in the real world more than a few times. It depends what you want to shoot, etc. I don't mean to say it will matter for everyone at all, for some it virtually never may, but it's garbage OTOH to just turn the whole thing into a big joke and laugh it and so beyond downplay it as you are and you can get a bit snide and insulting about it all.

I'm sorry that I disagree, but I do. I'm also sorry that I've found the growing level of...angst...in the Canon community (at least those that hang out on DPR, here, and a couple other places) to be particularly humorous. I spend a lot of time viewing other photographers work. Online, at galleries, in books. Most of it is beautiful, artful, creative, and beautifully composed. Its only at final glance that I MAY notice grain or noise...or a funky artifact tucked away in a corner somewhere, or a tiny bit of banding in some deep shadow. Those things just don't matter...the beauty, art, and creative composure are what matter...what catch my eye...what draw me in.

Comparing the capabilities of the technology that took most of those photographs to what we have today...the difference on a technological level is stunning! I'm frequently awed when I see a photograph that looks like it was taken with $60,000 worth of gear, only to find it out was something like a 350D with the cheap 18-55mm kit lens! The fact that you can get the worlds best AF system, second highest ISO capability, and one of the best viewfinders I've ever seen (not to mention the host of other improvements the 5D III has) for $3500...as compared to the $7k, $8k, or even $40-60k you might have had to spend 4 years ago for similar and even LESS CAPABLE gear...amazes me. It absolutely floors me though that so many photographers are hung up on the bottom few bits of DR and a megapixel count as the focal point upon which their world hynges.

What really boggles my mind, though, is that all that angst appears to actually be making photographers worry that they chose the wrong brand (as evidenced by @tonyp's question in this very forum.) So yes, I downplay the angst, and I intend to keep downplaying it because it really doesn't matter. People have been making awesome photographs with far lesser technology than either the 5D III or D800. People will continue making awesome photographs with far lesser technology. In five years, people will be making awesome photographs with the 5D III and D800 when they pale in comparison to the next greatest gear to hit the markets, even if that gear supports 16-bit ADC and a full four stops better DR.

It's not the gear that makes the photograph...and I just can't help but laugh when so many people are nearly up in arms over issues that are...relatively speaking...so small, and largely irrelevant in the face of talent and skill. I don't mean to be snide, I apologize if it comes off that way (I tend to argue passionately regardless of what I'm arguing), and I'll try to avoid that in the future. But my mind is truly blown...so much ruckus for such little things.

I just want to clear up one too though, most us did dig into for no particular reason but only after we ran into the issues in the real world more than a few times. It depends what you want to shoot, etc. I don't mean to say it will matter for everyone at all, for some it virtually never may, but it's garbage OTOH to just turn the whole thing into a big joke and laugh it and so beyond downplay it as you are and you can get a bit snide and insulting about it all.

I'm sorry that I disagree, but I do. I'm also sorry that I've found the growing level of...angst...in the Canon community (at least those that hang out on DPR, here, and a couple other places) to be particularly humorous. I spend a lot of time viewing other photographers work. Online, at galleries, in books. Most of it is beautiful, artful, creative, and beautifully composed. Its only at final glance that I MAY notice grain or noise...or a funky artifact tucked away in a corner somewhere, or a tiny bit of banding in some deep shadow. Those things just don't matter...the beauty, art, and creative composure are what matter...what catch my eye...what draw me in.

Comparing the capabilities of the technology that took most of those photographs to what we have today...the difference on a technological level is stunning! I'm frequently awed when I see a photograph that looks like it was taken with $60,000 worth of gear, only to find it out was something like a 350D with the cheap 18-55mm kit lens! The fact that you can get the worlds best AF system, second highest ISO capability, and one of the best viewfinders I've ever seen (not to mention the host of other improvements the 5D III has) for $3500...as compared to the $7k, $8k, or even $40-60k you might have had to spend 4 years ago for similar and even LESS CAPABLE gear...amazes me. It absolutely floors me though that so many photographers are hung up on the bottom few bits of DR and a megapixel count as the focal point upon which their world hynges.

What really boggles my mind, though, is that all that angst appears to actually be making photographers worry that they chose the wrong brand (as evidenced by @tonyp's question in this very forum.) So yes, I downplay the angst, and I intend to keep downplaying it because it really doesn't matter. People have been making awesome photographs with far lesser technology than either the 5D III or D800. People will continue making awesome photographs with far lesser technology. In five years, people will be making awesome photographs with the 5D III and D800 when they pale in comparison to the next greatest gear to hit the markets, even if that gear supports 16-bit ADC and a full four stops better DR.

It's not the gear that makes the photograph...and I just can't help but laugh when so many people are nearly up in arms over issues that are...relatively speaking...so small, and largely irrelevant in the face of talent and skill. I don't mean to be snide, I apologize if it comes off that way (I tend to argue passionately regardless of what I'm arguing), and I'll try to avoid that in the future. But my mind is truly blown...so much ruckus for such little things.

Yeah, I wonder if Nikon had less of it, if you'd be going on about how no true artist could ever use a Nikon or some such equally ridiculous nonsense from the other side of things.

And before you toss more snide insults realize that not everyone is the same and what is a minor thing some may not be for others .

I said 1000 times sure you can make awesome photos, fantastic ones even with say the 10D, but that doesn't mean that you have as much freedom to make certain types that some might want to make and it isn't fair to put that all down to pathetic tech head talk.

Second, we obviously don't disagree (and, btw, I was not claiming you actually don't use your gear or your software correctly.) The point I've been trying to make, which I believe you have made for me better than I could myself...is low-level differences that require poking around a raw file with open-source editors so you can see special masked off data that is only supposed to be used by code...just doesn't matter.

I never thought we were in disagreement. We just had different ways of illustrating our points. It's nice to have a civil discussion on a topic that's become so incendiary these days. As soon as the 5DIII and D800 hit the streets, hopefully people will be too busy shooting to split hairs about such trivial issues

Here's why I'm having a hard time accepting LetTheRightLensIn's (and other DPR guys') method for determining the DR from the black & white exposures:

Thought experiment:

You could have some arbitrary algorithm in the processing pipeline that says 'hey, if you're <2060 (say that's the average maximum pixel signal Canon ever saw in a number of completely black exposures on the 5D III), I'm gonna make you 0'... and then suddenly your black exposure would be ~0 with very little standard deviation... like the Nikon D7000 file... and then suddenly your DR from this method of calculation goes up like 2 or 3 stops.

So what if Nikon did that with the D7000?

Some operation like this would not, however, affect the more rigorous way to measure DR based on actually measuring the luminosity of scene elements recorded (the range of which should exceed DR capable by camera).

Apologies in advance if you think I should take this conversation elsewhere.

Apologies in advance if you think I should take this conversation elsewhere.

I find the tech talk somewhat interesting, but admit that I don't fully understand it. Maybe I'm too dumb or too lazy to learn. I prefer the old school method of looking at a image, and judging the quality of the technology behind it accordingly.

Apologies in advance if you think I should take this conversation elsewhere.

I find the tech talk somewhat interesting, but admit that I don't fully understand it. Maybe I'm too dumb or too lazy to learn. I prefer the old school method of looking at a image, and judging the quality of the technology behind it accordingly.

Of course, doing so introduces the human factor.

Both methods (objective and subjective) have their flaws.

Personally, I'm far more interested in the images I am able to produce with a camera than any of its paper stats or what staff photogs are publishing. Hoping my pre-order was early enough that I'll have a "3" in hand late next week. We'll see.